Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(October 1999)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Idiot of the hour
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg @ monkeys . com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:40:21 -0700
To: list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:13:30 -0700. <Pine . BSI . 4 . 10 . 9910150812290 . 5275-100000 @ queernet . queernet . org>

In message <Pine .
 BSI .
 4 .
 10 .
 9910150812290 .
 5275-100000 @
 queernet .
 queernet .
 org>,
"Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk @
 QueerNet .
 ORG> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Steve Bergeon wrote:
>> You all would rather have your beepers go off and have
>> to scramble around at whatever hour to close the barn doors 
>> after the fact rather than be proactive and enforce a policy
>> by the use of technology?
>
>Where possible, rather than invoke technology, I'd rather a policy of
>common decency were well-known, and that people acted decently.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, any expectation of adherence
to _anyone's_ definition of "common decency" among all members of a
large community (e.g. the net community, which now numbers in excess of
100 million souls) is bound to be disappointed.

If it were possible to rely upon universal adherence to obvious and
widely held standards of "common decency", would there exist mailing
lists, newsgroups, and yes, even books dedicated to the topic of spam?

I agree that it would be nice if we could rely on the decency of strangers, 
but given that we can't, what's your second choice?



Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Idiot of the hour
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg @ monkeys . com>
Next: Re: Idiot of the hour
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Idiot of the hour
From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk @ QueerNet . ORG>
Next: Re: Idiot of the hour
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com